The Sea Dragon also had the advantage that the nozzles were _so large,_ that the combustion oscillations were expected to be _so slow_ that 1960s technology could actively cancel them out- this was itself part of an independent analysis.
@@markododa Why not the US controlled "Great Lakes" that could be accessed much cheaper than buying up huge pieces of land for artificial lakes? The other option for artificial lakes would be to reclaim some ocean area, Holland style, a bit like their Ijseelmeer.
I think its Crazy how the Saturn V is over 50 years old and still the most powerful rocket to ever successfully launch to space and that we might finally beat it with not one but two rockets in the coming few years (SLS and Starship)
Actually, the USSR's Energia rocket was more powerful than Saturn V, and the Urugan derived from both Energia and the Buran Shuttle would have been fully reusable.
Could have happened. The Apollo Program killed a lot of more sustainable projects, because it sucked up pall funding, and then died of being way to expensive, killing all innovation for decades. Ironically, without the race to the Moon, space technology would likely be far more advanced today. Project Orion would have been by far the best. It didn't require any fancy tech, materials, or manufacturing, but could deliver insane payloads, and not just to LEO, but anywhere in the Solar System. It only needed advanced nukes, thousands per launch, but that apparently wasn't an issue.
The problem was they were actually TOO massive to work. Bono was one of the few to address the likely damage such large boosters would do during launch. He had his ROMBUS launch not from a normal launch pad but one situated in the middle of a bowl shaped concrete ring which would be partially filled with water at launch. In addition to a massive sound-suppression water spray system the standing water in the 'bowl' would take on a concave shape at launch due to the engines firing and that and the shape of the bowl would direct the sound upwards so sparing the Cape and surrounding area from massive over-pressure sound waves. As the ROMBUS rose the shape would change and gradually 'defocus' the sound allowing the vehicle to pass through without harm. (In theory anyway :) ) The Boeing "Big Onion" used and artificial lake for takeoff and landing for the same reason with several of these 'launch bowls' spread out along the shore and the LV floated and towed into position for launch or recovery. Vehicles like the NEXUS and AMPLV were suggested to be launched from offshore platforms but the distance needed for such huge vehicles was prohibitive. (It doesn't help that sound carries better over/through water either)
The concept of those "Generation Ships" was (and i guess is) a crazy possibility that could have been done with those simple yet giant Orion rockets! I wish we had more SciFi exploring the social aspects of all that besides the mess that "Ascension" was.
Too bad that when numbers come out NOT supporting Elon's and SpaceX antics, or are downright unavailable, cancerous, easilly triggerable Elon's fanbase cries bloody murder....
@@welchphilip I think this meant specifically spotty funding towards the UR concept. The USSR space program received enormous funding throughout, it employed the best and had an entire government ministry dedicated to it, linking up hundreds of dedicated R&D centers and factories all over the Union. Thing is, UR was a concept that Chelomei's space company pushed for, for DECADES, but despite having some defenders at the top, they always lost out the favor (and the BIG funding) to Korolev holding's solutions in the end. So that's what "no actual funding" means.
ALL of the consepts craft in this video isn't a fuel saver, Raven( 9:50) just needed mass adjustment and the ability to fold wings of orbit bulk parking, the military ground to ground (9:00) needed a 2 stage, where the adjacent rockets to slide out as a skycrane *pelt* , no canister explosion danger, parachute second stage land, avoiding a 2 full round trip escape vessel
- The *Saturn Nova* was designed be some 50% larger than the "5" was. - It was the original rocket slated to put a man on the moon with a; direct to moon & back Command (no rendezvous) rocket but it also required an additional upper stage. - What most people don't know is that the *real* reason von Braun *reluctantly* opted for the LEM rendezvous method was that the first stage of the *NOVA* was too big to make at the rocket building plant & would have cause a serious time delay & additional expence of building a huge new manufacturing plant & larger 8 F-1 rocket motor clusters testing stands in Huntsville AL. Putting the entire Kennedy; "Man on the moon before the decade was over!" mandate in jeopardy! - So we got to the moon first & on time with a smaller rocket but gave up a 4 manned post Apollo LEM that would have then used the NOVA's extra power for the "Moon Rendezvous" method later in a next step moon base building program. - You have to remember that von Braun didn't give a rats ass about the moon. For him,, It was always about going to Mars. And his up graded NOVAsl could have sent an *Apollo 8* styled manned 3 ship fleet mission to orbit Mars with stacked to modified *NERVA-RIFT* powered *SkyLabs* by *1984* (1 extra, double stacked, supply Sky Lab to remain in Mars orbit for docking future landing missions in1988). - So we won the Space Race folks! But lost out on what now would have been historicly past manned Mars missions. All because a building was *too small!* ......
And this, Scott, is why you should not devote any of your time to becoming yet another space news anchor. Another master piece, thank you for this great content!
People seem to have forgotten that the Ares rocket was designed for 8 boosters, and that SLS is based on that design. I'd love to see what it's really capable of - if they ever even get it off the ground before the whole project gets killed. Boeing has really screwed the pooch.
Boeing has deliberately screwed US tax-payers -- not "the pooch". The entire company is immoral and corrupt with the blessings of US Senators who receive large campaign contributions in return. How very sad ☹️
The Soviets designed the UR700M after they installed the mod that allows them to scale rocket parts. Before that, adding more boosters was the only option to make bigger rockets.
Who captured the image on your desktop at ~1:55 with the aurora and tree lining up perfectly? That looks wonderful and I'd love to see a full resolution image.
Scott, this is definitely my favorite video from you to date! Ridiculously huge rockets, cool 20th century concept images, 420, what else can you ask for?
I think the shuttle is a derivative of the double space planes concept. They made the first stage non reusable first then added the side boosters because the engines weren’t that powerful
STS was a compromise between NASA and DoD to be able to steal a Soviet spy satellite and take it back to Edwards/Groom Lake. NASA wanted a crew ferry to send people to work on things launched on Saturn Vs, DoD wanted massive crossrange landing capability to grab a spysat and bring it back on one orbit, and then Nixon cancelled the Saturn program. And once it was built, the Air Force conveniently forgot about it and never used that capability. And fourteen people died because it was kind of a crap design.
@@randycampbell6307 Well regardless. Using the same craft to leave earth especially a manned craft then require it to land back on earth is incredibly stressful for the craft and incredibly dangerous for the crew. Space craft should stay in space. Then you send the human crew, fuel, and a separate lander which can be different depending on where it’s to land say Earth, Mars, the Moon. Sure way more expensive but allows for much more versatility and modifications.
@1:40, nice shout out to the reusable Saturn S1 concept from Convair! What's funny is that it was literally about a paragraph in the entire "NEXUS" study even though it had been worked on (after NASA asked it be included :) ) just about as much as the actual "NEXUS" itself. Not sure if the proposed recoverable version of the SII stage was given the same treatment, (only illustrations are essentially a slightly smaller S1 re-drawn) but it's interesting that the actual 'question' NASA asked Convair was about a NEXUS-like vehicle that could mount heavier upper stages (such as a larger NERVA or large self-deploying space station) AND still fit in the VAB. Hence the 'squashed' S1 and SII which would lower the overall height (and still fit on the MLP :) ) enough for those upper stages to clear the top of the VAB doors. Think you might address the Goodyear METEOR (2,500ft long and 1500ft in diameter "Space Station" made by disassembling the third stage of a fully reusable, fully manned three stage to orbit vehicle, ya gotta love the esthetic :) ) and METEOR LV and it's successor METEOR Jr?
Hey man! Been binge watching 👀 u for awhile now. And I just want to say ... Thank you mister Manley. Your free education is greatly appreciated by this one. Your disposition is great. Your attitude towards life seems very appreciated and genuine . We need a few more of folks with your ilk. I'll keep watching you and I really, really like your Content.
I love that the fully reuseable multistage to orbit idea for lifting heavy payloads and saying money goes way back to Von Braun. I did not know this. Thank you!
@Locut0s - von Braun was my longtime celebrity hero. You need to see his Disney made ion powered fleet trip to Mars from way back. It'll blow your mind! - Say,,, are you sipping yours tru a straw? (Hic)...
The current size is based upon affordability at this time. As the business case drives larger rockets, they will be built. Once infinite government budgets are not available, then business constraints come in to play.
That's not really true...historically, roads and railroads, as well as large ships were developed without a market right at hand. They were betting on expansion creating a market that would sustain their model and give them a tidy profit. I'd say that since the railroad, and then the highway, and then the cargo ship basically built the entire 20th century...It works.
Image all the fish floating to the top of the ocean from the continuous explosion from that giant rocket engine, the fishing boats would be in a race from the safety exclusion zone as soon as been cleared to collect up all those fish's.
I was literally just reading up on Saturn MLV, Nova and Phillip Bono rocket design variants before I knew you were gonna release this today. Seems any SHLV design exceeding 100 tons in payload mass has to get wider and not taller than 100m.
Most of that is to do with how the VAB at the Cape is constructed. Of course, there is the TeamVision Jupiter III concept which just says "Hey we're gonna need a bigger building, that's fine, right?"
Thrust to weight plays a role here. If you roughly approximate that rocket parts and fuel have a certain average density, then an engine with a given footprint and thrust to weight ratio can only support a limited height of "rocket stuff" above it. I guess with current thrust to weights this comes out to 100m
There is only one reason to build "skinny" and that is tool or transportation limits. There are some aerodynamic reasons, but at scale those start to matter much less. Girth beats length...even in engineering.
Scott, thank you so much for using the term "plug nozzle" engine rather than the much-abused "aerospike" when what you;re talking about actually is a plug-nozzle engine! Any chance of an update on detonation engines? I only heard of Oblique Wave Detonation Engines the other day - interesting idea. I'm curious as to what kind of ISP RDE's and OWDE's might get though.
I believe he addressed that in a q&a with "most of my time in making a video is spent searching for images to use" so the answer is "the internet with lots of patience"
I love this channel. Does anyone know where Scott reads all this stuff? I never got taught this stuff in uni because it just doesn't directly get involved in the exercise of design, but it is stuff that can guide the designer!
I also remember reading of a design back in the late '80s/early '90s where they went for musk-style horizontal scaling. The rocket would be lots of long tanks next to each other, alternating fuel/lox with an engine at the joint of each tank, with stages being nested inside each other.
I’ve never heard anyone mention the aquatic sonic issues something like Seadragon would have created. They were among of the (many) issues that led to then end of underwater nuclear testing, and the energy involved in one of those launches would be nearing that scale.
Assembling it in orbit over a period of years and then firing it up in space would make more sense, imo. Seeing those blasts from hundreds or thousands of miles up would be just as impressive.
Larry Niven's Footfall ought to get a mention - great fiction - spoiler alert: the Orion launch just destroys the manufacturing plant and the surrounding town.
@@AwfulnewsFM Earth-based Orion launch attempts made sense in the 1960s, when both USA and USSR tested nukes to their hearts' content. Back then, I don't think anyone would've batted an eyelid at a few dozen nuclear explosions in quick succession, considering the Soviets had detonated the Tsar Bomba early in the decade. Now we have the START treaties in effect, and the environmental implications are considerable (nuclear fallout, etc.).
Dude! I always enjoy your videos. Always informative and entertaining. I don't know why, but this current video is out of this world great. Keep it up!
The best giant space thing is the plan to have the Saturn S-1C do a boostback burn and be grabbed out of the air under parachutes by a ridiculously huge helicopter powered by ramjets on the rotor tips, to be built by Hughes.
@@HuntingTarg You're not the first to wonder, but I can't remember the answer. I think it might be in one of Scott's older videos where he built a Star Raker in KSP, but I might be thinking of something else.
I don't know why, but it seems most people either worship Elon, or dispute him and everything he does. The fact that people were saying, making a larger rocket is stupid, is ridiculous. I'm not going to grovel at elons feet and pretend he's the real life tony stark, but I'm not going to snob at the things his company gets right. It boggles my mind how people don't realize the reason space x is successful, is because elon hires good engineer. You can think he's personally an idiot, but there's no denying his companies have made some very impressive things, whether he personally designed them or not.
I mean - no matter how you put it it would be modern technology. I'm sure all of them woild basically be possible but doubt some of them would've been feasible with 60s-70s technology.
There was a film project based in Sydney, Australia called Man Conquers Space. This used the Chesley Bonestell vehicles. Sadly the film was never completed. There are trailers on you tube. They are brilliant, a vision of what might have been. As for launch vehicle designs, there is Space Shuttle by Dennis R Jenkins. I bought a copy on eBay from a guy in California called Rick Berman. It is a good read.
A prerequisite is someone find big / heavy enough payload to fully utilize such rockets. A cargo container ship is also more efficient if it is bigger. But we don't build them until we got enough goods to ship frequent enough and loading / unloading those cargo fast enough.
@@KuK137 No, not really. Combustion instability is great example of his point. Rockets are under _extreme_ forces. As you scale things up, those forces also scale,and things can get funky.
The thing I cannot reconcile about Sea Dragon is, how would they ever make a pressure-fed first and second stage feasible? The thicker the rocket gets, the walls of the tanks have to be proportionally thicker to withstand the same pressure, so wouldn't the tanks be just too heavy to reach orbit?
Nope. The tanks could be proportionally lighter because the internal volume is expanding faster than the perimeter. Thus less tank is needed per pound of propellant.
The tanks would have to be somewhat thicker at the bottom, simply because of the higher head-pressure. But the needed hoop-strength is constant for diameter. A pressure of 20 bar for a 5 meter wide tank would remain 20 bar for a 50 meter tank; and, say ~4mm steel remains 4mm. The steel required is 10 times greater (for a given height), but the volume enclosed is 100 times. Could such a booster perform on balloon-stiffnes alone? If so, having a one-use design starts to make sense, as long as you're not doing crew-rated launches, but rather just throwing materiel into LEO.
@@dillonvandergriff4124 I don't think this is how pressure vessels work. As the radius increases, the curvature decreases, and to have the tension strength high enough for the pressure, the walls need to be thicker. Even before anyone starts using propellant.
pressure vessel mass ratios remain constant regardless of the size, you can check out the derivation why on the Wiki page for pressure vessels. What this means is that the mass ratio of a huge rocket at a certain pressure can be exactly the same as for a small vehicle at the same pressure. It's just that the pressure in this case is pretty low for a rocket
13:45 Yeah, I understand that ratio.. but fuel tanks should not be pressurized? When we scale a pressurized tank, for the same pressure the dry mass of the tank increase exactly at the same rate than the volume, so I dont see benefits on that regard, I hear that we can save on avionics, but that is NOTHING in comparison to the over all dry mass. I always wanted to know how scale benefit the rocket performance and why.. But never read nothing detailed on that topic.
This may be repetition of something I posted elsewhere about Sea Dragon. In the summer of 1962, after my 2nd year of college, I was privileged to work for Robert C. Truax at Aerojet-General's Advanced Propulsion Laboratory in Sacramento, California. Among the things I was involved in was doing calculations for 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 million pound thrust first stage Sea Dragon designs! How did I happen to get the job? Well, back in 4th grade, 1954, I had this crazy idea about using "controlled" atomic explosions to power rocket ships. My uncle, who had been in the Navy in WWII, suggested I send the idea to the Bureau of Aeronautics, which I did. I got a very nice letter from a, then, Cdr. R.C. Truax, encouraging me. (I still have the letter!) In 1962, when the Air Force announced Project Orion, with a similar concept (with some actual testing with high explosives), I wrote to Truax to see if my kid's dream had sparked an idea. His reply was that he didn't think so, but how would I like to work for him at Aerojet, which I did. Another idea he played with was using some propellants that would self-pressurize because they boiled at room temperature. So long as they were under pressure, they remained liquid. He would walk around with a clear bottle of Freon, so you could see it in its liquid form, until he squeezed a valve release, whereupon the vapor would spray out of the nozzle. He used the similar concept with supersaturated steam in Evil Kineavals' motor cycle that was attempted to fly across the Snake River canyon. When the cycle failed to get enough thrust to fly across the canyon, and Kineval was forced to use a parachute, Truax "accepted blame" for not getting the water hot enough. Personally, I don't think it was intended to make it across, because Kineval would have been split like a fish if he landed!
Japan's SS-520-5 weighs a little under 3 tons at launch, is about 31 feet in height, 20 inches diameter and successfully placed a 4kg cubesat into low Earth orbit on its maiden launch 3 Feb 2018
Now I am wondering how big a Starship V2 could be? If the concept of scaling up rockets works for SpaceX, would they try to make Starship even bigger? Curious what you think @ScottManley 🤔
Surely if it works and they find the need, they'll go for the original starship design that's almost twice as big (mass) featured in the start of this video?
They could go with triple-booster Starship Heavy, if they need about x3 payload. There is no demand for such beasts in the foreseeable future, though (about 1000 ton max payload to LEO in expendable config!!!). Smaller and simpler way to launch occasional heavy and/or oversized payloads is to have an expendable version of the upper stage, with traditional fairing.
Am glad Project Orion got a quick shout-out at the end, but if you are talking about big spacecraft, that is the Big Daddy of them all. The "mid-range" Orion was 4,000 tons (so still bigger than the Saturn V), but the "Super Orion" clocked in at 8 MILLION tons (3 million of which was cargo) and was 400m wide and 450m tall.
Another good video Scott. Chronologically speaking, instead of saying it looks like something Elon Musk would design, it would be more accurate to say that the earlier designs are what Musk is drawing inspiration from.
Hold on... Starship v3 is the same height as sea dragon. And an expended starship v3 may be able to lift the dame amount as sea dragon despite being 3× thinner
covering daedalus engines and that project would be a great follow up to this video! especially with them maybe being in KSP2 down the line in the road map!
What is an empire but all humanity under the direction of a single mind? I was right, but I dreamed too small. I have seen how much more we have to be. Winston Daurte approves these designs.
I would love some MORE detail on ALL of these! This is so interesting. Why didn't they work? Where there any viable prototypes? Please, please expand on this video! :)
The concerns of instability for the Sea Dragon main engine are overblown and rooted in it's very low operating pressure. Combustion instability scales linearly with volume but not pressure which is why most rocket engines operate at several orders of magnitude higher pressure. However as you scale up the motor there's no need to lengthen the combustion chamber as the optimal length is the same no matter how wide or large it's volume is being driven by the characteristic burn length of the fuel mix. This means it's actually extremely easy to prevent any instabilities from reaching the chamber walls before the mass flow of the exhaust has already swept it out of the nozzle completely. Obviously this only works for rocket motors that are fifty feet wide or so. That's how the motors, the single most expensive rocket component per pound were to be made in a ship yard and out of welded diamond plate.
I was wondering if you were going to mention the Orion nuclear thing. I remember watching a documentary that was talking about it and they were saying they needed to make it heavy and huge to be able to reduce its speed to a more controlled level or something like that. It stuck out to me because it went against everything I had learned (through documentaries) about how you build a rocket as light as possible. I remember thinking wow that's different.
Fun fact: One of the Heavy-lift Vehicles from NASA's SPS study (the Alternate Design at 10:31) has similar payload to Starship (120t), yet only 4000t mass when full. Which is less than simply the fuel mass of Starship (a 20% boost), and even with some mass reserve! Apparently, aluminium construction/winged flyback is a pretty efficient design!
I'm sort-of weirdly surprised and unsurprised at the same time. It looks like a big coincidence but it's probably not. If ol' Musky's parents named him after that and told him so, it would have a big influence on him.
People skeptical of the starship are mostly skeptical about the economics of it and the over promises from Elon... Not if it will actually fly.. it probably will.
@@HalNordmann not surprised, and the door they are implementing seams to point in that direction as well..with reduced available volume Vs the original concept.
Fun fact: One of the Heavy-lift Vehicles from NASA's SPS study (the Alternate Design at 10:31) has similar payload to Starship (120t), yet only 4000t mass when full. Which is less than simply the fuel mass of Starship (a 20% boost), and even with some mass reserve! Apparently, aluminium construction/winged flyback is a pretty efficient design!
"It's a lot like Kerbal Space Program except with lots of toxic propellant and no actual funding" Is about the best description of the soviet space program I've ever heard.
Fun fact: One of the Heavy-lift Vehicle from NASA's SPS study has similar payload to Starship (120t), yet only 4000t mass when full. Which is less than simply the fuel mass of Starship (a 20% boost), and even with some mass reserve! Apparently, aluminium construction/winged flyback is a pretty efficient design!
I usually see comments go more into the "too complicated, nobody has gotten 33/37/39 engines to work in synch and any attempts in the past ended like the N1" direction. but that can obviously be interpreted as "too big to work" too, if you squint a bit. ;)
It's interesting that they used slide rules. If they'd needed more accuracy, they had books of logarithm tables. The books take much longer to use than slide rules, so unless you really need high precision you use a slide rule.
I wish you'd look into a VentureStar design that went nowhere. I only saw a picture of it once and can't find that drawing anymore. It consisted of two VentureStar-like vehicles mounted belly to belly. One vehicle was much larger as it served like the Shuttle's external tank but flew back for reuse. I recall there was a caption that referred to the larger VentureStar as the F1 Flyback first stage. I've seen one StarShip proposal that had two additional boosters (I guess) for heavy payloads. I've wondered if the StarShip concept might be extended to consist of four boosters wrapped around the Ship and all vehicles ignite to gain orbit but the four boosters also refuel the ship during launch to orbit. Would that eliminate the ten-plus launches to refuel the Starship lunar lander? One possible advantage of this concept is the elimination of extra stiffening to support the Ship during launch that the current booster requires.
I always wondered how and if we could design and build a rocket bigger and more powerful than the Saturn V. But I also believe that Von Buran would want the Saturn V record to be beaten. I think he would be advocating for us to go back to the moon and beyond. He would be proud of Elon Musk & Peter Beck.
I am very sure the Sea Dragon first stage engine would have bizarre instability issues. It's not surprising that "The SpaceX Pintle Guy" thinks pintles are magical and not subject to combustion instability. I have worked with pintles as well as other injector designs, the reality is that each injector flavor has it's own issues. Pintles can be great, but they absolutely have multiple known issues, and to my knowledge there is no experience with super duper big pintles to know if any of those issues would become insurmountable as you scale up to that ridiculous size. The "few big engines vs. many smaller engines" question is always an interesting one to me, and really the answer should always be "it depends" instead of having a straightforward clear winner. That said, once you get up to a single gargantuan pintle, where you could probably swim through the pintle injector holes, I am willing to bet that you'd run into some absolutely bizarre instability issues and just generally weird fluid dynamics. Super high Reynolds number + multiphase flow + turbulent flow is always gonna be complicated, add to that the inevitable combustion instability issues associated with having your flame too spread apart to behave cohesively and you're always gonna have issues with big engines. Possibly surmountable issues, but with an engine that large there is an engineering diminishing returns calculation you have to make, i.e. how much engineering person hours + simulation time + testing time is it worth to have a single engine? How much is the test stand gonna cost? how are you gonna transport it? etc... Those externalities probably make an engine that large practically unrealistic.
Skeptics who suggest it's impossible...why can't you just make a video without shilling for Elon with a straw man. Nobody ever said it's impossible. People said it's very hard to make it fully reusable and in the given timeframe and budget.
"If you don't have the numbers, it's just an opinion" Hope that's an original Scott, 'cuz I'm gonna use it often!!!! Another great episode, Thankx......
The main issue is you need ~250 tons to high orbit for the required tunnel boring machines needed for creating settlements on the Moon and Mars. This is just for the main cutting heads and assemblies. You need about as much in support equipment and also a way to power them. 40-50 tons simply won't cut it (bad pun, I know). And at least 2-3 of them, plus spares (100-200 tons in just spare teeth). Basically 1000-1200 tons at the site and then you can fairly quickly start making tunnels and chambers. Starship, since it is designed to re-fuel in orbit, could do this in as little as 3-4 launches. So within a decade we could actually see construction start on a base on either the Moon or Mars if all goes well.
Not all tunnel boring machines are heavy or delivered in one piece. A road header weighs 35 to 116 tonnes completely assembled. At the higher end a complete tunnel boring machine for a 15m diameter tunnel weighs 4000 tonnes…
@@herrschaftg35 Modern designs necessitate the construction of underground tunnels and essentially bunkers and can be accomplished in a few years. The main issue is getting all of the equipment - thousands of tons of it up there and ready to start.
The Sea Dragon also had the advantage that the nozzles were _so large,_ that the combustion oscillations were expected to be _so slow_ that 1960s technology could actively cancel them out- this was itself part of an independent analysis.
Robert Truax was truly great.
Maybe.. in pre-computer modelling.
Poor whales tho.
@@candyjaywee yeah, in their defense they studied using artificial lakes
@@markododa Why not the US controlled "Great Lakes" that could be accessed much cheaper than buying up huge pieces of land for artificial lakes? The other option for artificial lakes would be to reclaim some ocean area, Holland style, a bit like their Ijseelmeer.
I think its Crazy how the Saturn V is over 50 years old and still the most powerful rocket to ever successfully launch to space and that we might finally beat it with not one but two rockets in the coming few years (SLS and Starship)
SLS block 2 will never fly. It is too expensive and Starship will probably be flying by then.
The new rockets will develop more thrust but may or may not beat the saturn in payload to leo. Definitely an amazing rocket for its time.
Next year the satn 5 will finally be beaten
@@EtzEchad Well, if they manage to build these raptor engines... Elon has been quite scared about that lately...
Actually, the USSR's Energia rocket was more powerful than Saturn V, and the Urugan derived from both Energia and the Buran Shuttle would have been fully reusable.
Imagine living in an alternative reality where they actually tried to build things like those and massive space stations in the 70s.
Could have happened. The Apollo Program killed a lot of more sustainable projects, because it sucked up pall funding, and then died of being way to expensive, killing all innovation for decades. Ironically, without the race to the Moon, space technology would likely be far more advanced today.
Project Orion would have been by far the best. It didn't require any fancy tech, materials, or manufacturing, but could deliver insane payloads, and not just to LEO, but anywhere in the Solar System. It only needed advanced nukes, thousands per launch, but that apparently wasn't an issue.
The problem was they were actually TOO massive to work. Bono was one of the few to address the likely damage such large boosters would do during launch. He had his ROMBUS launch not from a normal launch pad but one situated in the middle of a bowl shaped concrete ring which would be partially filled with water at launch. In addition to a massive sound-suppression water spray system the standing water in the 'bowl' would take on a concave shape at launch due to the engines firing and that and the shape of the bowl would direct the sound upwards so sparing the Cape and surrounding area from massive over-pressure sound waves. As the ROMBUS rose the shape would change and gradually 'defocus' the sound allowing the vehicle to pass through without harm. (In theory anyway :) )
The Boeing "Big Onion" used and artificial lake for takeoff and landing for the same reason with several of these 'launch bowls' spread out along the shore and the LV floated and towed into position for launch or recovery.
Vehicles like the NEXUS and AMPLV were suggested to be launched from offshore platforms but the distance needed for such huge vehicles was prohibitive. (It doesn't help that sound carries better over/through water either)
@@randycampbell6307 Meanwhile SpaceX is like "Fuck the Whales / Entirety of Texas anywhere near Boca Chica"
@@andrasbiro3007 Granted the fallout / radioactive emissions from a non orbital only Orion would be horrible
The concept of those "Generation Ships" was (and i guess is) a crazy possibility that could have been done with those simple yet giant Orion rockets!
I wish we had more SciFi exploring the social aspects of all that besides the mess that "Ascension" was.
Love the reference to the first of Akin's S/C design laws: "Engineering is done with numbers. Analysis without numbers is only an opinion."
Too bad that when numbers come out NOT supporting Elon's and SpaceX antics, or are downright unavailable, cancerous, easilly triggerable Elon's fanbase cries bloody murder....
I love it too, so true
11:38 " It's a bit like KSP but more communist, with lots of toxic propellants and no actual funding" LMAO. I love you man.
So just more communist lol those other things just describe communism
I almost died!! epic comment
Scott will be remembered for that one!
@@welchphilip I think this meant specifically spotty funding towards the UR concept. The USSR space program received enormous funding throughout, it employed the best and had an entire government ministry dedicated to it, linking up hundreds of dedicated R&D centers and factories all over the Union. Thing is, UR was a concept that Chelomei's space company pushed for, for DECADES, but despite having some defenders at the top, they always lost out the favor (and the BIG funding) to Korolev holding's solutions in the end. So that's what "no actual funding" means.
ALL of the consepts craft in this video isn't a fuel saver, Raven( 9:50) just needed mass adjustment and the ability to fold wings of orbit bulk parking, the military ground to ground (9:00) needed a 2 stage, where the adjacent rockets to slide out as a skycrane *pelt* , no canister explosion danger, parachute second stage land, avoiding a 2 full round trip escape vessel
10:35 You can literally hear Scott smiling while saying that lmao.
Saturn Nova project was HUGE. Same with the Nerva for when they wanted to go to mars on the saturn rocket. That was a big deal.
- The *Saturn Nova* was designed be some 50% larger than the "5" was.
- It was the original rocket slated to put a man on the moon with a; direct to moon & back Command (no rendezvous) rocket but it also required an additional upper stage.
- What most people don't know is that the *real* reason von Braun *reluctantly* opted for the LEM rendezvous method was that the first stage of the *NOVA* was too big to make at the rocket building plant & would have cause a serious time delay & additional expence of building a huge new manufacturing plant & larger 8 F-1 rocket motor clusters testing stands in Huntsville AL. Putting the entire Kennedy; "Man on the moon before the decade was over!" mandate in jeopardy!
- So we got to the moon first & on time with a smaller rocket but gave up a 4 manned post Apollo LEM that would have then used the NOVA's extra power for the "Moon Rendezvous" method later in a next step moon base building program.
- You have to remember that von Braun didn't give a rats ass about the moon. For him,, It was always about going to Mars. And his up graded NOVAsl could have sent an *Apollo 8* styled manned 3 ship fleet mission to orbit Mars with stacked to modified *NERVA-RIFT* powered *SkyLabs* by *1984* (1 extra, double stacked, supply Sky Lab to remain in Mars orbit for docking future landing missions in1988).
- So we won the Space Race folks! But lost out on what now would have been historicly past manned Mars missions. All because a building was *too small!* ......
@@mydogbrian4814 probably a bit if a money issue as well 🤔
Sea Dragon remains my favorite rocket design. Such a cool idea, and love to see the concept of the massive BDB continue with Starship.
I initially read BDB as Big Dick Booster
@@thisisyourusernameondrugs9373
Thinking with the other head, i see
Send the idea to Elon after Starship
@gay bowser
Playing too muck Kerbal eh? I did the same
@@thisisyourusernameondrugs9373 You're telling me it means something other than this?
Gotta love Sea Dragon. Seeing it in For All Mankind after reading about it decades ago was a great moment.
Agreed
The serie was amazing until they came up with the space shuttle
@@lorisperfetto6021 the finale also.
And this, Scott, is why you should not devote any of your time to becoming yet another space news anchor.
Another master piece, thank you for this great content!
People seem to have forgotten that the Ares rocket was designed for 8 boosters, and that SLS is based on that design. I'd love to see what it's really capable of - if they ever even get it off the ground before the whole project gets killed. Boeing has really screwed the pooch.
As in the designs using 8 Segment Solid Rocket Boosters, or 8x 5/5.5 Segment Solid Rocket Boosters on a single rocket?
How is it a screw up Boeing has been paid for alot more than a decade and still lots to come a perfect project by their parameters
@@alanrickett2537 I'm guessing, you're a government employee.
Boeing has deliberately screwed US tax-payers -- not "the pooch". The entire company is immoral and corrupt with the blessings of US Senators who receive large campaign contributions in return. How very sad ☹️
@@alanrickett2537 The sls is taking longer than expected, and is costing much more than expected. Its a similar situation with starliner
I just want to state that I appreciate how Scott edited the Starship to match each size diagram, with the blueprint-style wireframe being a highlight.
The Soviets designed the UR700M after they installed the mod that allows them to scale rocket parts. Before that, adding more boosters was the only option to make bigger rockets.
Tweakscale is for capitalist pigs.
Who captured the image on your desktop at ~1:55 with the aurora and tree lining up perfectly? That looks wonderful and I'd love to see a full resolution image.
It's called "The Aurora Tree", and it is from NASA's APOD: Astronomy Picture of the Day. Give that a search.
@@Double_Vision Thanks!
Scott, this is definitely my favorite video from you to date! Ridiculously huge rockets, cool 20th century concept images, 420, what else can you ask for?
there isn't 69 though :(
I think the shuttle is a derivative of the double space planes concept. They made the first stage non reusable first then added the side boosters because the engines weren’t that powerful
We also don’t use it anymore for various reasons and the shuttle wasn’t designed for long distance space missions.
Other way around, the Boeing "Space Freighter" was designed from the work done on the Shuttle Orbiter.
STS was a compromise between NASA and DoD to be able to steal a Soviet spy satellite and take it back to Edwards/Groom Lake. NASA wanted a crew ferry to send people to work on things launched on Saturn Vs, DoD wanted massive crossrange landing capability to grab a spysat and bring it back on one orbit, and then Nixon cancelled the Saturn program. And once it was built, the Air Force conveniently forgot about it and never used that capability. And fourteen people died because it was kind of a crap design.
@@randycampbell6307 Well regardless. Using the same craft to leave earth especially a manned craft then require it to land back on earth is incredibly stressful for the craft and incredibly dangerous for the crew. Space craft should stay in space. Then you send the human crew, fuel, and a separate lander which can be different depending on where it’s to land say Earth, Mars, the Moon. Sure way more expensive but allows for much more versatility and modifications.
@@DeliveryMcGee Crap design? Only 2 failures out of how many flights?
@1:40, nice shout out to the reusable Saturn S1 concept from Convair! What's funny is that it was literally about a paragraph in the entire "NEXUS" study even though it had been worked on (after NASA asked it be included :) ) just about as much as the actual "NEXUS" itself. Not sure if the proposed recoverable version of the SII stage was given the same treatment, (only illustrations are essentially a slightly smaller S1 re-drawn) but it's interesting that the actual 'question' NASA asked Convair was about a NEXUS-like vehicle that could mount heavier upper stages (such as a larger NERVA or large self-deploying space station) AND still fit in the VAB. Hence the 'squashed' S1 and SII which would lower the overall height (and still fit on the MLP :) ) enough for those upper stages to clear the top of the VAB doors.
Think you might address the Goodyear METEOR (2,500ft long and 1500ft in diameter "Space Station" made by disassembling the third stage of a fully reusable, fully manned three stage to orbit vehicle, ya gotta love the esthetic :) ) and METEOR LV and it's successor METEOR Jr?
I know it gets said a lot, but the UR-900 is *the* most kerbal thing ever designed.
12:19 "...it looked like a Proton that just kept on adding stages and tanks after it should have stopped."
Point supported.
I was surprised and delighted to see you've collaborated with Amy Shira Teitel, which makes perfect sense and would be good to see.
Hey man!
Been binge watching 👀 u for awhile now.
And I just want to say ...
Thank you mister Manley.
Your free education is greatly appreciated by this one.
Your disposition is great.
Your attitude towards life seems very appreciated and genuine .
We need a few more of folks with your ilk.
I'll keep watching you and I really, really like your Content.
I love that the fully reuseable multistage to orbit idea for lifting heavy payloads and saying money goes way back to Von Braun. I did not know this. Thank you!
@Locut0s - von Braun was my longtime celebrity hero. You need to see his Disney made ion powered fleet trip to Mars from way back. It'll blow your mind!
- Say,,, are you sipping yours tru a straw? (Hic)...
The current size is based upon affordability at this time. As the business case drives larger rockets, they will be built. Once infinite government budgets are not available, then business constraints come in to play.
That's not really true...historically, roads and railroads, as well as large ships were developed without a market right at hand. They were betting on expansion creating a market that would sustain their model and give them a tidy profit.
I'd say that since the railroad, and then the highway, and then the cargo ship basically built the entire 20th century...It works.
Moar boosters!!! Thanks for this awesome video, Scott Manley. It's a lot of fun thinking about the great beasts that could have been.
watching this in mid 2022 is great - watch Scott's older stuff to understand SpaceX today. Fantastic content Scotty
It’s good to think big back then especially sea dragon big
The sea dragon would have been the greatest rocket of all time
I would AGREE in saying the greatest _non-nuclear_ rocket.
A vehicle based on _PROJECT ORION_ would have been the greatest _nuclear_ rocket.
You could actually play little league baseball minus the outfield in the first stage engine bell.
Image all the fish floating to the top of the ocean from the continuous explosion from that giant rocket engine, the fishing boats would be in a race from the safety exclusion zone as soon as been cleared to collect up all those fish's.
@@drmosfet >>> _"WIN - WIN!"_
😊😊😊
Hopefully not. All time is a lot of time.
Please make a part 2!
I was literally just reading up on Saturn MLV, Nova and Phillip Bono rocket design variants before I knew you were gonna release this today. Seems any SHLV design exceeding 100 tons in payload mass has to get wider and not taller than 100m.
Most of that is to do with how the VAB at the Cape is constructed.
Of course, there is the TeamVision Jupiter III concept which just says "Hey we're gonna need a bigger building, that's fine, right?"
I do have a soft spot for the MLV designs, they could’ve been perfect for the Apollo Applications Program
Is there actually an interesting read to read up on this stuff or do you mean browsing the web?
Thrust to weight plays a role here. If you roughly approximate that rocket parts and fuel have a certain average density, then an engine with a given footprint and thrust to weight ratio can only support a limited height of "rocket stuff" above it. I guess with current thrust to weights this comes out to 100m
There is only one reason to build "skinny" and that is tool or transportation limits. There are some aerodynamic reasons, but at scale those start to matter much less.
Girth beats length...even in engineering.
Scott, thank you so much for using the term "plug nozzle" engine rather than the much-abused "aerospike" when what you;re talking about actually is a plug-nozzle engine! Any chance of an update on detonation engines? I only heard of Oblique Wave Detonation Engines the other day - interesting idea. I'm curious as to what kind of ISP RDE's and OWDE's might get though.
That is the best quickie you have ever done. Congrats SM
Scott where do you get all of these awesome concept art from? I love looking at them
I believe he addressed that in a q&a with "most of my time in making a video is spent searching for images to use" so the answer is "the internet with lots of patience"
Personally my favorite concept was Boeing's LMLV. I think it was proposed in 1968, and could carry about 2000 tons to orbit (I think?)
~1800 metric tons but close enough
Daaamn that's like 2 of yo mamma ;)
@@danielculver2209 and a fraction of yours.
@@Nyx42112 He ain't coming back from that one
@@ThePhantomRocket But you keep coming back for these two blubber bimbos of moms we have
I love this channel. Does anyone know where Scott reads all this stuff? I never got taught this stuff in uni because it just doesn't directly get involved in the exercise of design, but it is stuff that can guide the designer!
I also remember reading of a design back in the late '80s/early '90s where they went for musk-style horizontal scaling. The rocket would be lots of long tanks next to each other, alternating fuel/lox with an engine at the joint of each tank, with stages being nested inside each other.
I’ve never heard anyone mention the aquatic sonic issues something like Seadragon would have created. They were among of the (many) issues that led to then end of underwater nuclear testing, and the energy involved in one of those launches would be nearing that scale.
I don't think Sea Dragon would've been very bad for aquatic life. Nowhere near as much energy involved. It would also have been done in deep water.
1:00 love how the screensaver changes the movement of his hand ^^
An Orion launch would be spectacular (from a distance!)
Even more spectacular close up - just not safe.
Assembling it in orbit over a period of years and then firing it up in space would make more sense, imo. Seeing those blasts from hundreds or thousands of miles up would be just as impressive.
@@paulrockatansky77 it's sad because on of the good points of Orion was the amazing lift off to orbit capability.
Larry Niven's Footfall ought to get a mention - great fiction - spoiler alert: the Orion launch just destroys the manufacturing plant and the surrounding town.
@@AwfulnewsFM Earth-based Orion launch attempts made sense in the 1960s, when both USA and USSR tested nukes to their hearts' content. Back then, I don't think anyone would've batted an eyelid at a few dozen nuclear explosions in quick succession, considering the Soviets had detonated the Tsar Bomba early in the decade. Now we have the START treaties in effect, and the environmental implications are considerable (nuclear fallout, etc.).
Dude! I always enjoy your videos. Always informative and entertaining. I don't know why, but this current video is out of this world great. Keep it up!
The best giant space thing is the plan to have the Saturn S-1C do a boostback burn and be grabbed out of the air under parachutes by a ridiculously huge helicopter powered by ramjets on the rotor tips, to be built by Hughes.
That truly was hilarious. The helicopters literally looked like Saturn V first stages with propellers installed.
The tip of the blades would have been supersonic even at the minimum speed
Ooh! I'd forgotten about the ramjet helicopter thing. I read about it years ago. :D
Amazing artistic drawings of a proposed rocket design by Concodroid at 1:46 . I wonder what their career is 'cause they should become an artist.
good idea
When it comes to spaceplanes, the Star Raker is an absolute beast!
I can't but wonder if it had some connection to the James Bond story "Moonraker."
@@HuntingTarg You're not the first to wonder, but I can't remember the answer. I think it might be in one of Scott's older videos where he built a Star Raker in KSP, but I might be thinking of something else.
Scott Manley tweaking Musketeers. Love it!
I don't know why, but it seems most people either worship Elon, or dispute him and everything he does. The fact that people were saying, making a larger rocket is stupid, is ridiculous. I'm not going to grovel at elons feet and pretend he's the real life tony stark, but I'm not going to snob at the things his company gets right. It boggles my mind how people don't realize the reason space x is successful, is because elon hires good engineer. You can think he's personally an idiot, but there's no denying his companies have made some very impressive things, whether he personally designed them or not.
I'd love to see a day when people build these rockets just to see if they would have worked. imagine seeing that!
I mean - no matter how you put it it would be modern technology. I'm sure all of them woild basically be possible but doubt some of them would've been feasible with 60s-70s technology.
Just as I’d like to see all WW2 Concept designs tested and made, some of them (Habakkuk) were insane
@@glauberglousger6643
I so wish Habakkuk was real
Hazegrayart 's channel has great animations for most of the concepts described here!
There was a film project based in Sydney, Australia called Man Conquers Space. This used the Chesley Bonestell vehicles. Sadly the film was never completed. There are trailers on you tube. They are brilliant, a vision of what might have been.
As for launch vehicle designs, there is Space Shuttle by Dennis R Jenkins. I bought a copy on eBay from a guy in California called Rick Berman. It is a good read.
It’s fun to learn about how Kerbal Space Program just imitated real life (designs)…
There's something really cool and nostalgic about these space-age illustrations.
the "game over" killed me 😂- so evocative of the clickbait titles all over youtube
Wait... Scot, it has flown, and de-orbited. Although it hasn't hit the sticks yet, it did make orbit.
Thanks for the episode.
I had a feeling that increasing scale might make rockets more efficient. This is obviously really great news.
I don't know if this is true for rockets, but i do know that it is true for Ekranoplans.
800 meters size Ekranoplan when
But scaling a rocket is not the same as scaling a bridge. Mass reveals problems never encountered before.
A prerequisite is someone find big / heavy enough payload to fully utilize such rockets. A cargo container ship is also more efficient if it is bigger. But we don't build them until we got enough goods to ship frequent enough and loading / unloading those cargo fast enough.
@@KuK137 No, not really. Combustion instability is great example of his point. Rockets are under _extreme_ forces. As you scale things up, those forces also scale,and things can get funky.
0:30 “4-1/2 thousand tons”? I have driven freight trains that have weighed less than that. You kind-of forget how big this thing is.
The thing I cannot reconcile about Sea Dragon is, how would they ever make a pressure-fed first and second stage feasible? The thicker the rocket gets, the walls of the tanks have to be proportionally thicker to withstand the same pressure, so wouldn't the tanks be just too heavy to reach orbit?
Nope. The tanks could be proportionally lighter because the internal volume is expanding faster than the perimeter. Thus less tank is needed per pound of propellant.
Could they be thin walled, with internal stays ? I don't know , just an idea
The tanks would have to be somewhat thicker at the bottom, simply because of the higher head-pressure. But the needed hoop-strength is constant for diameter. A pressure of 20 bar for a 5 meter wide tank would remain 20 bar for a 50 meter tank; and, say ~4mm steel remains 4mm. The steel required is 10 times greater (for a given height), but the volume enclosed is 100 times.
Could such a booster perform on balloon-stiffnes alone? If so, having a one-use design starts to make sense, as long as you're not doing crew-rated launches, but rather just throwing materiel into LEO.
@@dillonvandergriff4124 I don't think this is how pressure vessels work. As the radius increases, the curvature decreases, and to have the tension strength high enough for the pressure, the walls need to be thicker. Even before anyone starts using propellant.
pressure vessel mass ratios remain constant regardless of the size, you can check out the derivation why on the Wiki page for pressure vessels.
What this means is that the mass ratio of a huge rocket at a certain pressure can be exactly the same as for a small vehicle at the same pressure. It's just that the pressure in this case is pretty low for a rocket
'UR-900 is a Proton with unreasonably MOAR BOOSTERS'
Truly Kerbal.
13:45 Yeah, I understand that ratio.. but fuel tanks should not be pressurized? When we scale a pressurized tank, for the same pressure the dry mass of the tank increase exactly at the same rate than the volume, so I dont see benefits on that regard, I hear that we can save on avionics, but that is NOTHING in comparison to the over all dry mass.
I always wanted to know how scale benefit the rocket performance and why.. But never read nothing detailed on that topic.
This may be repetition of something I posted elsewhere about Sea Dragon. In the summer of 1962, after my 2nd year of college, I was privileged to work for Robert C. Truax at Aerojet-General's Advanced Propulsion Laboratory in Sacramento, California. Among the things I was involved in was doing calculations for 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 million pound thrust first stage Sea Dragon designs! How did I happen to get the job? Well, back in 4th grade, 1954, I had this crazy idea about using "controlled" atomic explosions to power rocket ships. My uncle, who had been in the Navy in WWII, suggested I send the idea to the Bureau of Aeronautics, which I did. I got a very nice letter from a, then, Cdr. R.C. Truax, encouraging me. (I still have the letter!) In 1962, when the Air Force announced Project Orion, with a similar concept (with some actual testing with high explosives), I wrote to Truax to see if my kid's dream had sparked an idea. His reply was that he didn't think so, but how would I like to work for him at Aerojet, which I did.
Another idea he played with was using some propellants that would self-pressurize because they boiled at room temperature. So long as they were under pressure, they remained liquid. He would walk around with a clear bottle of Freon, so you could see it in its liquid form, until he squeezed a valve release, whereupon the vapor would spray out of the nozzle. He used the similar concept with supersaturated steam in Evil Kineavals' motor cycle that was attempted to fly across the Snake River canyon. When the cycle failed to get enough thrust to fly across the canyon, and Kineval was forced to use a parachute, Truax "accepted blame" for not getting the water hot enough. Personally, I don't think it was intended to make it across, because Kineval would have been split like a fish if he landed!
Great video as always, Scott! Makes me wonder about the opposite, though: what were the smallest orbital launchers ever proposed?
- To my knowledge the early 60's 4 stage Scout X-1 sounding rocket put a dinky little satellite into LEO several times.
Japan's SS-520-5 weighs a little under 3 tons at launch, is about 31 feet in height, 20 inches diameter and successfully placed a 4kg cubesat into low Earth orbit on its maiden launch 3 Feb 2018
Ahh the shoutout to the GAME OVER!! meme is beautiful
Now I am wondering how big a Starship V2 could be? If the concept of scaling up rockets works for SpaceX, would they try to make Starship even bigger? Curious what you think @ScottManley 🤔
Surely if it works and they find the need, they'll go for the original starship design that's almost twice as big (mass) featured in the start of this video?
@@Tiwack01 that would be really interesting, why did they chose the scaled down version, do you know?
They could go with triple-booster Starship Heavy, if they need about x3 payload. There is no demand for such beasts in the foreseeable future, though (about 1000 ton max payload to LEO in expendable config!!!). Smaller and simpler way to launch occasional heavy and/or oversized payloads is to have an expendable version of the upper stage, with traditional fairing.
@@denysvlasenko9175 that would be sick
I like videos like this because they give me plausible yet wonderful technology to put into stories.
Man the 2016 starship render is still my favorite. Looked so wicked
Still hasn't flown yet, and I'm doubting it ever will.
@@anzaca1 surely they spent years developing a rocket that will never fly. Are you dumb?
Am glad Project Orion got a quick shout-out at the end, but if you are talking about big spacecraft, that is the Big Daddy of them all. The "mid-range" Orion was 4,000 tons (so still bigger than the Saturn V), but the "Super Orion" clocked in at 8 MILLION tons (3 million of which was cargo) and was 400m wide and 450m tall.
Another good video Scott.
Chronologically speaking, instead of saying it looks like something Elon Musk would design, it would be more accurate to say that the earlier designs are what Musk is drawing inspiration from.
I'm really starting to love Scott's tongue-in-cheek tone whenever he mentions 420.
Hold on... Starship v3 is the same height as sea dragon. And an expended starship v3 may be able to lift the dame amount as sea dragon despite being 3× thinner
Another superb snapshot of history! Keep it up.
Haven't watched the video thru yet buy I'm sure the comments will be filled with people talking about how awesome the sea dragon is
covering daedalus engines and that project would be a great follow up to this video! especially with them maybe being in KSP2 down the line in the road map!
What is an empire but all humanity under the direction of a single mind? I was right, but I dreamed too small. I have seen how much more we have to be.
Winston Daurte approves these designs.
I would love some MORE detail on ALL of these! This is so interesting. Why didn't they work? Where there any viable prototypes? Please, please expand on this video! :)
They simply weren’t funded because Congress didn’t want to support such a massive project. Von Braun’s rocket was rendered unnecessary by technology.
@@scottmanley Thank you!
Can you do a video on Orion? Beautiful idea but a little (very) hazardous to the environment and people.
Already watched this video like three or four times, can't get over the ridiculousness of these.
The concerns of instability for the Sea Dragon main engine are overblown and rooted in it's very low operating pressure. Combustion instability scales linearly with volume but not pressure which is why most rocket engines operate at several orders of magnitude higher pressure. However as you scale up the motor there's no need to lengthen the combustion chamber as the optimal length is the same no matter how wide or large it's volume is being driven by the characteristic burn length of the fuel mix. This means it's actually extremely easy to prevent any instabilities from reaching the chamber walls before the mass flow of the exhaust has already swept it out of the nozzle completely. Obviously this only works for rocket motors that are fifty feet wide or so. That's how the motors, the single most expensive rocket component per pound were to be made in a ship yard and out of welded diamond plate.
I was wondering if you were going to mention the Orion nuclear thing. I remember watching a documentary that was talking about it and they were saying they needed to make it heavy and huge to be able to reduce its speed to a more controlled level or something like that. It stuck out to me because it went against everything I had learned (through documentaries) about how you build a rocket as light as possible. I remember thinking wow that's different.
That space freighter concept sounds really cool! Maybe scaled down to maybe 30-40t to LEO, it might be economical
Fun fact: One of the Heavy-lift Vehicles from NASA's SPS study (the Alternate Design at 10:31) has similar payload to Starship (120t), yet only 4000t mass when full. Which is less than simply the fuel mass of Starship (a 20% boost), and even with some mass reserve! Apparently, aluminium construction/winged flyback is a pretty efficient design!
I love winged flyback!
scaling down rockets tends to destroy their economicality; Rocket Lab discovered this the hard way and are now scaling up to an F9 scale rocker
Just the thing is, there's no market at all for commerical super heavy lift
yet!
The machinegun on the Concodroid ship is particularly excellent imo! :D
Isnt this book "Projekt Mars" the one were von Braun also descibed the Martian gov structure and the title he chose for the Mars leader was Elon?
I'm sort-of weirdly surprised and unsurprised at the same time. It looks like a big coincidence but it's probably not. If ol' Musky's parents named him after that and told him so, it would have a big influence on him.
Scott, I don’t know how you keep just making such interesting and engaging videos… even just reading from teleprompter right? You are great at that
People skeptical of the starship are mostly skeptical about the economics of it and the over promises from Elon... Not if it will actually fly.. it probably will.
Although I have some doubts about its payload. I have done some math on it, and maximum reusable payload is only somewhere in the 60-80t range.
@@HalNordmann not surprised, and the door they are implementing seams to point in that direction as well..with reduced available volume Vs the original concept.
I love finding out about weird concepts like these!
Keep up the good work!
I'd love to hear more about the pressure wave problems associated with large rocket engines.
Cheers from Alaska,
Greg Chaney
"If you don't have the numbers, it is just an opinion". Now that is a great quote, especially in this day and age.
I still believe NASA should revisit the Boeing Space Freighter and commission a modern version of it.
Fun fact: One of the Heavy-lift Vehicles from NASA's SPS study (the Alternate Design at 10:31) has similar payload to Starship (120t), yet only 4000t mass when full. Which is less than simply the fuel mass of Starship (a 20% boost), and even with some mass reserve! Apparently, aluminium construction/winged flyback is a pretty efficient design!
@@HalNordmann Agreed. Personally, that's what the space shuttle should have been.
@Hal Nordmann Could you just stop spamming?
@@ImieNazwiskoOK It's hard to silence a fool.
Congress wont let them
I've never seen that stacked ROMBUS/Ithacus design before in any media, and I've been a fan of that design for years😳
"It's a lot like Kerbal Space Program except with lots of toxic propellant and no actual funding" Is about the best description of the soviet space program I've ever heard.
People in the future are going to be so confused as to why people from the 2020-2025 period seemed to be so amused by the numbers 420 and 69.
What about the Project Orion? It was a massive Spaceship powered by Nuclear explosions.
Orion gets better as it gets bigger, so you arrive to insane shit aka interstellar orion
He mentioned it, mostly in passing.
@@slashmerc2764
If we go interstellar then Orion is just a speck of dust. There are designs that use entire stars for propulsion.
And in many proposed applications, an actual PROPER "starship", even potentially crewed (often by hosting *generations* of people to get there)
I love these TH-cam video titles, these are big on paper compared to an actual Starship block 1. lol.
Haven't heard anyone say the problem is that Starship is too big to fly.
You don’t read all the comments on my TH-cam channel….
Fun fact: One of the Heavy-lift Vehicle from NASA's SPS study has similar payload to Starship (120t), yet only 4000t mass when full. Which is less than simply the fuel mass of Starship (a 20% boost), and even with some mass reserve! Apparently, aluminium construction/winged flyback is a pretty efficient design!
I usually see comments go more into the "too complicated, nobody has gotten 33/37/39 engines to work in synch and any attempts in the past ended like the N1" direction. but that can obviously be interpreted as "too big to work" too, if you squint a bit. ;)
@@scottmanley ha, true. Thanks for another great video. Fly safe!
What propellent was used, a lot of these designs used hydrogen which makes a big difference.
Great job Scott
Nope
*And most of those Rockets were Designed with Slide Rules, not Electronic Calculators and Computers!*
real mathematicians do not even need sliderules
It's interesting that they used slide rules. If they'd needed more accuracy, they had books of logarithm tables. The books take much longer to use than slide rules, so unless you really need high precision you use a slide rule.
I wish you'd look into a VentureStar design that went nowhere. I only saw a picture of it once and can't find that drawing anymore. It consisted of two VentureStar-like vehicles mounted belly to belly. One vehicle was much larger as it served like the Shuttle's external tank but flew back for reuse. I recall there was a caption that referred to the larger VentureStar as the F1 Flyback first stage.
I've seen one StarShip proposal that had two additional boosters (I guess) for heavy payloads. I've wondered if the StarShip concept might be extended to consist of four boosters wrapped around the Ship and all vehicles ignite to gain orbit but the four boosters also refuel the ship during launch to orbit. Would that eliminate the ten-plus launches to refuel the Starship lunar lander? One possible advantage of this concept is the elimination of extra stiffening to support the Ship during launch that the current booster requires.
I always wondered how and if we could design and build a rocket bigger and more powerful than the Saturn V. But I also believe that Von Buran would want the Saturn V record to be beaten. I think he would be advocating for us to go back to the moon and beyond. He would be proud of Elon Musk & Peter Beck.
Ah yes, the German engineer von Buran, not to be confused with Soviet lead engineer Sergey Shuttlev
He'd certainly get along with Elon Musk politically, otherwise not so much since Musk is not an engineer.
I was thoroughly disappointed when Starship first announced it redesign. I was hoping for a much bigger ROCKET 🚀
if the Raptor can mature into something better still, we will see a bigger version of Starship/Super Heavy.
That was great, more please
I am very sure the Sea Dragon first stage engine would have bizarre instability issues. It's not surprising that "The SpaceX Pintle Guy" thinks pintles are magical and not subject to combustion instability. I have worked with pintles as well as other injector designs, the reality is that each injector flavor has it's own issues. Pintles can be great, but they absolutely have multiple known issues, and to my knowledge there is no experience with super duper big pintles to know if any of those issues would become insurmountable as you scale up to that ridiculous size.
The "few big engines vs. many smaller engines" question is always an interesting one to me, and really the answer should always be "it depends" instead of having a straightforward clear winner. That said, once you get up to a single gargantuan pintle, where you could probably swim through the pintle injector holes, I am willing to bet that you'd run into some absolutely bizarre instability issues and just generally weird fluid dynamics. Super high Reynolds number + multiphase flow + turbulent flow is always gonna be complicated, add to that the inevitable combustion instability issues associated with having your flame too spread apart to behave cohesively and you're always gonna have issues with big engines. Possibly surmountable issues, but with an engine that large there is an engineering diminishing returns calculation you have to make, i.e. how much engineering person hours + simulation time + testing time is it worth to have a single engine? How much is the test stand gonna cost? how are you gonna transport it? etc... Those externalities probably make an engine that large practically unrealistic.
I like how Von Braun is taking a photo of the space station model with his smartphone @ 03:40. Not sure what model it is but guessing a Galaxy Note.
Skeptics who suggest it's impossible...why can't you just make a video without shilling for Elon with a straw man. Nobody ever said it's impossible. People said it's very hard to make it fully reusable and in the given timeframe and budget.
Nobody ever said??
A lot of people said.
And a lot of idiots saying starship also not going to work.
"If you don't have the numbers, it's just an opinion" Hope that's an original Scott, 'cuz I'm gonna use it often!!!! Another great episode, Thankx......
The main issue is you need ~250 tons to high orbit for the required tunnel boring machines needed for creating settlements on the Moon and Mars. This is just for the main cutting heads and assemblies. You need about as much in support equipment and also a way to power them. 40-50 tons simply won't cut it (bad pun, I know). And at least 2-3 of them, plus spares (100-200 tons in just spare teeth). Basically 1000-1200 tons at the site and then you can fairly quickly start making tunnels and chambers. Starship, since it is designed to re-fuel in orbit, could do this in as little as 3-4 launches. So within a decade we could actually see construction start on a base on either the Moon or Mars if all goes well.
Nothing is going to be built on Mars within a decade. And it is highly unlikely that there will be a crewed station on the moon within the same time.
Is there any way to lighten the cutting heads? Or does the nature of tunnel boring necessitate a minimum mass?
Not all tunnel boring machines are heavy or delivered in one piece.
A road header weighs 35 to 116 tonnes completely assembled.
At the higher end a complete tunnel boring machine for a 15m diameter tunnel weighs 4000 tonnes…
@@herrschaftg35 Modern designs necessitate the construction of underground tunnels and essentially bunkers and can be accomplished in a few years. The main issue is getting all of the equipment - thousands of tons of it up there and ready to start.
@@5000mahmud Yes, most of that he pulled right out his ass..